OCR Text |
Show purposes would not receive such a benefit. It is hard to see why one class of non-highway users should receive re-ceive a benefit, by way of a tax reund, while some other non-Shway non-Shway fuel user would have to pay the tax. This was a principal princi-pal argument presented agams the bill by Senator Lynn S. Rich ards, D., Salt Lake, who said, If we are going to grant such tax relief, let's give it to everyone using us-ing fuel for non-highway purposes." pur-poses." Another argument against the measure was founded on the premise pre-mise that farmers of the state are in all probability the greatest beneficiaries ben-eficiaries of the highway system because of the thousands of dollars dol-lars which have been expended to construct and maintain the roads on which they transport their crops to markets. Representative B. H. Stringham, R , Vernal, opposed the bill on the house floor with the observation that there was no way to prevent farmers from using this tax-exempt tax-exempt fuel in their automobiles except to trust in their honesty. Argued Mr. Stringham: "Don't put this temptation in front of us Utah farmers. Kill this bill and help keep the farmers honest." The governor did. , By J. J. CAHOON Salt Lake City (Special to the Sprlngvllle Herald When Gov. Hertx-rt B. Maw vetoed SB 65, to provide a rebate of gasoline tax on fuel used in farm equipment not operated on the highways, he virtually admitted that the Twenty-fifth Legislature had tied up state funds so tightly that the governor la unable to get his hands on even a few thousand dollars of state money. When the governor vetoed the gasoline tax rebate measure, he contended that no money to administer ad-minister the act had been set up by the legislature and at the same time he admitted, at least by inference, in-ference, that he could not get his hands on enough money to operate oper-ate the proposed rebate system. This was a direct refutation of his earlier veto of SB-196, to allow diversion of sales tax, when he contended that he could divert the sales tax funds without legislative legis-lative approval. In other words the governor denies that he can find $20,000 for the rebate setup, but he believes he can find $1,600,-000 $1,600,-000 for the welfare institutions, such as the mental hospital, train- ing school and tuberculosis sana- torium. Having vetoed SB 196, which would have legalized the sales tax diversion Governor Maw is now faced with the question: "How are these institutions going to operate after July 1st?" Of course, the governor indicated indicat-ed when he vetoed SB 196 that he believes or at least he says that he has the power to transfer funds from sales tax revenue, but before any transfer is made he must convince con-vince several other persons, some of whom already have expressed doubt as to the legality of such a diversion. These persons include the other two members of the Board of Examiners, Secretary of State E. E. Monson and Attorney General, Grover A. Giles, and the state fiscal officers who would be directly in charge of the transfer trans-fer and who also would be liable on their official bonds if the transaction trans-action later proved illegal. With the attorney general already on record against the legality of such a transfer, Governor Maw is certain cer-tain to find plenty of hurdles when he attempts to juggle these funds. The governor probably will attempt at-tempt to bluff it through, and he may win merely because no one will come forward to question him. The old age welfare group, which might have opposed such diversion of what they consider their sacred fund, will probably say nothing because be-cause they will realize that they are better off with the governor handling the transfer than with, the legislature doing it. Also the governor made a friend of the old age group when he vetoed SB 220, the legislature's welfare bill. Regardless Re-gardless of personal views, political politi-cal office holders hate public fights, so the other state officials may close their eyes and let the transfer get by. But there is still another hurdle for the governor, and that may prove a bit tougher. That is the senate membership, and while the members themselves may not take court action to block the governor, it would not be surprising sur-prising to see a "John Doe Citizen" Citi-zen" file such a suit, aided and abetted by some of the legal lights of the senate. However, should this action fail to happen, the possibility remains that the state's fiscal officers would refuse to make any such transfer of funds for which they are responsible . If they do, the chief executive will have only one alternative calling a special session ses-sion of the legislature to straighten straigh-ten out the financial tangle. One of the senators, in urging the governor to approve the gasoline gaso-line tax refund measure, pointed out that if the governor could find money for state make-work proj- ects and to aid in establishment of a parachute factory at Manti, he should be able to find a few thousand thou-sand dollars to operate the tax rebate system. The governor could have replied and probably did that those transfers were made in a different biennium, under a much different appropriations bill, and with the approval of a rubber-stamp rubber-stamp legislature. Things have changed on capitol hill. It is evident that in vetoing SB 65 the governor had no political move in mind. He evidently sincerely sin-cerely believed that the administrative adminis-trative cost of the bill, together with the lost revenue to the state would not counter-balance the favorable fav-orable side of the bill aid to the farmers of the state. In both houses of the legislature, legisla-ture, agricultural proponents of the gas tax refund measure had only one argument to offer in support sup-port of the bill, and that was that farmers shouldn't have to pay a tax on gasoline used in farm machinery ma-chinery not operated on the highways high-ways of the state. The chief argument against the bill was that it contained strictly class legislation aimed at aiding only the farmer. The measure was amended in the house so that other oth-er parties, exclusive of the farmers, far-mers, using fuel for non-highway |